State Political Tax

[JmeTN]

@PatrickLondon

Praticalities: Not all parties are united in the details of some general principle. So if the “Widgets for All” party gets to spend Xmillion on that project, who writes the laws and all the administrative instructions on how many widgets, when and who is included in the All? Or if there’s a “Widgets for Some” party, how is what they want co-ordinated withe the WFA operation? Who are the civil servants administering the scheme accountable to?

And suppose it’s not just a question of “Yes or no to programme X”, but not quite enough to do the job the party in question promised? If the end result is that only some street lights can go on, or only so many potholes repaired, who gets to decide whose interests are served and whose aren’t? Your neighbour gets a street light because they voted for the party who paid for it, and you don’t? How about when it comes down to policing or defence or the nuclear deterrent?

Of course, you can invent different ways of allowing or encouraging coalitions of opinions and interests to direct government, and that would mean trading plans and commitments on money. But that only works in practice if they agree on a common programme that can be put through as a more or less united administration. And there are all sorts of ways of using citizens initiatives or consultations as ways of setting spending and taxing priorities; but just setting up a system that, automatically, each party gets to spend a bit of money on some part of government as it likes just won’t work.

Principles: The problem here is that government tax and spend isn’t just about providing a cafeteria, or even a fixed price all-you-can-eat buffet, of individual services. Some public services may be better provided and wholly or partly paid for that way, but the heart of it is that a society needs to find a way to decide* together *what makes for a good society, to which tax is the membership fee. Or if you want to look at it purely functionally, some part of one’s income and wealth is the product of society’s investment in being a civilised place to live, and society as a whole is entitled to some return on that investment. Because we are “all members one of another”.

Living together as members of the same society needs to address the disparity among states that have a large portion of members not being served. Fleshing out the details can occur using the same system we use to flesh out any other program we have – just because it is difficult doesn’t make it unworthy of discussion. Like eschereal stated, the issues important to 47% members of … Frogstar World B … are not being addressed because their candidate lost. That is a lot of people (or frogs) without representation.

We could just start simple, at store registers. Before paying, we choose which party can have a percentage of the tax we are paying. The money would be collected the same way all product tax is collected – sent electronically to a state treasury account. The only difference would be, there would be 3 accounts & we can chose which one to fill. We can start with narrow choices of 2-3 programs at a time – like recycling centers & other environmental causes for democrats, & some funding can overlap. That is where we really see us working together, on those overlapping issues we agree on, like keeping our waterways clear of debris & fixing flood zones. We will find a lot of things to work together on, finding common ground, & hopefully reestablish cooperative attitudes at the state level. It isn’t impossible, just takes some thought. Start small & work our way up to more complex issues.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@JmeTN

We could just start simple, at store registers. Before paying, we choose which party can have a percentage of the tax we are paying.

Got it. If I want my pet projects to be funded, I simply buy more stuff than anyone else and designate the sales tax funds to the appropriate party. You say you can’t afford to do that? Tough luck, kid. Get a job. I don’t have a real job, mind you, I inherited my fortune.
Oh, I’ll also huddle with the local party bosses beforehand to tell them what I’m going to do and let them know that, if they want the funds to keep rolling in, they had better fully fund my pet project(s) before any others. I don’t want my tax dollars spent on silly stuff, only on the important to me stuff.

@JmeTN

…it is called reaching across the isle…

It is, indeed, a very Gilligan-esque plan.

[Ravenman]

@eschereal

In my congressional district, our rep was elected by about 52% to 47%. That means 160K voted for the winner and 148K voted for the loser. That is a lot of people put out of the loop. It has been that way across the country for about ever. How do you address the needs and wants of that many losers?

Through the political process. I note that your congressional representative hold just one vote out of 435.

@Doctor Jackson

It is, indeed, a very Gilligan-esque plan.

[smacks you with my hat]

[iamthewalrus_3]

@JmeTN

Those necessity taxes are separate from social issue subsidies – the gas & property taxes goes towards schools & road maintenance, so those are not an opt-out option. The issues that become so hard-lined like planned parenthood, which can become legal or illegal if the party rule flips – having a way to opt-in whether it be through income tax, product brand fund raising … just something as a way to give people a choice rather than forcing them to accept whatever the ruling party has on the agenda. Even some small changes where those hard-line subjects can be less of an issue that causes the largest amount of animosity. Each state will be different, & they can decide what those hard-line subjects are.

Yeah, but how does the state decide what hard-line subjects are? Do elected representatives do so? If so, why would the party in power give up the victory on the wedge issue that motivates their voters to put them into power?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Having actually worked for city government and having actually taken part in preparing a budget, I can only ask if the OP has ever seen a complete state budget. Both operating and capital budgets.

There are literally tens of thousands of budgetary items that the state spends money on. Most of these items are not programs as the OP defines them. Take, as one example out of those thousands, a state park. How would the mythical person designate taxes? Is there a check off that lists every state park and ask whether the taxpayer wants it kept? If so, do they get to pick just one or all or some? If some are picked, how does a person apply taxes for funding its operation? For building a new lodge? For a maintenance crew to cut the grass? For floating a bond to add acreage?

Among the tens of thousands of things wrong with this idea is that even the funding part doesn’t make sense. Does the OP have any idea of how many different funding streams a state has? Some, but not all states, having income taxes. There are also property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, lottery income, tolls, and a thousand others. How do they get apportioned?

The idea that people should get to directly apply their taxes to their favorite projects appears regularly. It sounds so simple. That should be a warning sign. If something sounds simple when applied to something as complicated as government, it’s inevitably not just wrong but nonsensical, a sure sign that the person proposing it doesn’t understand the reality. Might as well propose that for simplicity we should make pi equal 3.

[Telemark]

@Exapno_Mapcase

It sounds so simple. That should be a warning sign. If something sounds simple when applied to something as complicated as government, it’s inevitably not just wrong but nonsensical, a sure sign that the person proposing it doesn’t understand the reality. Might as well propose that for simplicity we should make pi equal 3.

“there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

– H. L. Mencken

[iamthewalrus_3]

I think the OP’s idea is not that literally every government expenditure is subject to the whims of voters, but that there’s a large mass of “uncontroversial” expenditures that are allocated normally by politicians, and a select few “controversial” issues that we fund in this less-contentious way.

Which is a nice idea that seems like it would get some of the rancor out of politics. You fund your thing, I fund mine, we all fund the basic normal stuff we mostly agree about.

The problem is that there’s likely no well-defined way to decide what issues go in which buckets.

It’s easy enough to say that things like Planned Parenthood are “controversial”, but how do you come up with a rigid legal definition? You can’t just go with your gut. You need some agreed-upon clear way of deciding which things are funded one way or another. And it needs to be robust against political factions that will of course try to get their pet issues declared as uncontroversial and necessary and their opponent’s issues (even if those opponents are in the vast majority) as risky and controversial and self-funded. Good luck!

[eschereal]

I once envisioned a system that was sort of similar to what JmeTN is suggesting.

Imagine government services being handled by a number of transient GSE co-op-like entities organized to deliver on their obligations optimally (we would hope). Twice a year, individuals would have the opportunity to pared out half of their tax allocation among the providers as a way of indicating their relative approval of how well each provider is doing their job. If a citizen declines the opportunity, their discretionary allocation would be divided equally among the providers, just like the nondiscretionary half.

The discretionary allocation, being an adjunct to voting, would have to be leveled somewhat, to that, say, the wealthiest person in town would not be distributing more than three or four times as much as the poorest.

The providers would acquire, drop and trade regimes of service based on what their full budget could support. Hence, the voters would decide who they think is/would do the best job with stuff and who is doing badly.

If a provider cannot gain adequate funding to support a specified minimum range of services, it would be dissolved. And after a designated interval, say, a dozen years, a provider would lose its GSE charter, have to give up its contracts, and be enjoined from being reconstituted in kind (with the same or similar leadership), to hugs the system dynamic. Co-op members (the groups/businesses that do the actual work) are at liberty to defect to a different provider, upon approval of that provider’s members, or just to fully private operation, which could leave a given provider with inadequate member resources to maintain a charter due to defections, forcing it into dissolution.

The formation of provider entities, an important part of the dynamic system arrangement, is a tricky challenge that I have not put enough thought into. But the key to this concept lies in the fact that we have to pay taxes for things we do not want in order for those guys over there pay for the things we do want: this would mostly preserve that, while also giving all of us a real, sensible voting tool.

[amarinth]

To try to give a real answer to the OP

@JmeTN

Yes, rather than fight about what is legal, illegal, subsidized or or not subsidized … we could all send our tax dollars where we want, except for where we all need services, like road maintenance, schools, & other such necessities.

In most states, this is what the fighting is about. How much road maintenance do we need? Can we live with the bridge for another 5 years? How much does it cost? Where in the state should the road maintenance go first? If we spent that money on alternative transportation, would it be cheaper than road maintenance in the medium run?

How much do schools need? What’s the best way to get the money to pay for them?

What are the “other such necessities”? Is health care a “necessity” and if so, how much should we spend as a state?

Most of the back and forth are over the things that you’ve handwaved away as the exception.

[Ravenman]

@iamthewalrus_3

The problem is that there’s likely no well-defined way to decide what issues go in which buckets.

I think the problem isn’t characterizing whether a program is controversial or not. The problem is that there are no simple answers to any public policy issue, and it simply makes sense to have people focus time and attention on learning, debating, and addressing those issues.

Expecting the public to make informed decisions on things like whether a needle exchange program will have terrible effects (maybe causing crime to skyrocket) or fantastic effects (eliminate HIV and similar diseases) is just asking too much of millions of people who ought to be focusing on more important things than making knee-jerk decisions with great implications based primarily on their gut feeling. I think California is a great example the risks here with its ballot initiative process, which I see as totally out of control.

I think that it is pretty hard for most voters to be well-informed on the candidates they vote for. I think of myself as very well informed on many current issues, and I can’t tell you a damn thing about quite a few of the local candidates that appear on my ballot.

Even more, I don’t feel well informed enough to make a funding decision on quite a few issues where I think I understand the policy issues pretty well. For example, I’m totally in favor of DC’s public assistance for family planning, and Republicans hate it, so it certainly fits the OP’s suggestion of a controversial issue. Does the program need $500,000? $50,000,000? Fuck if I know – I just think it’s a good idea. Don’t look at me to make a good decision on funding levels for that program, especially in relation to the need to improve our schools, fix our roads, etc.

[septimus]

@iamthewalrus_3

… The problem is that there’s likely no well-defined way to decide what issues go in which buckets…

And note that the Free Dope for Everyone Party would have an incentive to label spending on schools as controversial, whether they believed this or not, to maximize the pie portion available for Free Dope.

[Corry_El]

@eschereal

The biggest problem is that my neighbors contribute about .05% overall to the tax base, but that one guy on the other side of town, in the big house on the hill, pays almost .12% – significantly more than all of us over here combined. So, he gets more of a voice than we do, and there is no way for our needs to be addressed if that guy and a few of his friends decide to fuck us over.

I agree that’s one aspect of it individual choice to direct revenues, that is moving somewhat away from one person one vote toward effectively a more tax-$-weighted vote. Whether or not one agrees with that, it’s radical and would never happen IMO.

The idea of essentially giving the parties their own autonomous budgets based on a % of the vote, rather than a right to direct the tax revenues of the particular people who voted for that party, seems less far fetched. Perhaps that could be developed into a workable concept, and moreover one not automatically opposed by one side like giving parties control over the revenue of their voters. For some portion of spending that is, not all of it. To stop the political system seizing up in fights over minor spending items like Planned Parenthood, The Wall etc. Those are in fact not the do or die moral issues they are made out to be the by most contentious people on both sides who now dominate the party bases, nor significant $ amounts relative to whole govt spending and economy. If one party could use its discretionary fund based on vote % for one of them and the other party for the other, they wouldn’t have to fight about it. Any such spending would still be subject to judicial review.

Not sure how this has anything to do with third parties though. On the contrary, it would have to recognize and further reinforce the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans.

I’m not saying it’s an obviously great idea overall. I’m just saying one might come up with a workable concept along these lines if it didn’t do what you said, if it didn’t give individual people who paid $millions in taxes control over $millions in spending when it gave people who pay no taxes (a large %, considering just income taxes) control over no spending. That would never fly.

[Shodan]

Wouldn’t it be easier just not to have the state fund anything controversial? For whatever definition of “controversial” you like. Then people can contribute, or not, to that without the state intervening at all.

That way it doesn’t matter if your party wins or loses at the state level - you can fund, or not fund, Planned Parenthood or whatever else.

It doesn’t sound workable to me.

Regards,
Shodan